On standard paper, these pages would be about sixty feet tall if stacked. That is roughly equivalent to the height of a six-story building. If those same pages were laid end-on-end, they would be over thirty miles long.

And obviously, 180,000 pages of regulation do not come without a price tag.

A report by the National Association of Manufacturers concluded that regulations cost the economy over $2 trillion per year. Back in May, the Competitive Enterprise Institute came to a similar determination, pegging the annual cost of regulations at $1.9 trillion. Some analyses suggest even higher costs — according to an estimate by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, regulations reduce economic growth by $4 trillion every year.

But the economy is not the sole bearer of regulatory costs. Regulations are also expensive for the federal government itself, which now spends about $70 billion per year on regulatory activity. In comparison, the Eisenhower Administration in 1960 spent $533 million (about $4 billion in 2017 dollars) on regulatory matters.

Advertisement

Accordingly, Republicans have long been dedicated to cutting regulations. Ever since the Reagan era, deregulation has been one of the cardinal principles of fiscal conservatism.

And in that regard, the new Republican government isn't wasting any time. Just days after his inauguration, President Trump promised that his administration would cut regulations by 75%. He quickly issued several executive orders pertaining to regulation — he has ordered all agencies to review their regulations, and has required that agencies eliminate two regulations for every new regulation. And utilizing the Congressional Review Act, Congress has already repealed over a dozen Obama-era regulations.

In their most significant deregulation effort thus far, House Republicans have passed the Financial CHOICE Act of 2017. This bill, which the Senate is currently reworking, would partially repeal the piece of financial regulation known as the Dodd-Frank Act. Democrats passed Dodd-Frank in 2010, in an effort to reform the financial system and prevent another recession of 2008 proportions. Dodd-Frank has long been a target of Republicans, who see this law as an especially cumbersome burden to the economy. During last year's campaign, Trump vowed to "dismantle" Dodd-Frank.

Clocking in at 2,300 pages, Dodd-Frank is a gargantuan law — aside from its hundreds of new rules, it created a dizzying web of authorities, boards, bureaus, councils, and offices to oversee the financial system. And on top of the 2,300 pages of the law itself, Dodd-Frank has given rise to an additional 22,000 pages of agency-issued regulations. Overall, Dodd-Frank has cost the economy an estimated $36 billion since its implementation.

But Republicans must not be overzealous, either. Aggressive deregulation may produce a short-term economic boom, but politicians must also give thought to the long-term consequences.

Advertisement

In fact, a long-term approach is an essential part of true fiscal conservatism. Literally, the word "conserve" means to save resources. And to effectively save resources, one must obviously consider policies from a holistic perspective. A certain economic policy may have impressive short-term benefits, but if eventually results in some massive expense, it does not ultimately save resources — all of the policy's previous, short-term benefits are more than canceled out. Thus, the policy would not be fiscally conservative.

When this holistic principle is applied, regulations are seen in a rather different light. Dodd-Frank has cost the economy $36 billion, but this pales in comparison to the staggering costs of the Great Recession. According to the Dallas Fed's more conservative estimates, the Great Recession cost the economy $6 trillion to $14 trillion. The highest cost estimate in that report was $30 trillion. So if financial regulations do actually prevent another major financial crisis, they will save the economy trillions in the long run. It would literally take hundreds — or even thousands — of years before the costs of effective financial regulations exceeded their benefits.

The central point here is that, contrary to current orthodoxy, deregulation is not always fiscally conservative. If a regulation is actively costing more than it is worth, it would be fiscally conservative to eliminate it. But if the regulation is preventing the occurrence of an even greater cost, keeping the regulation is actually the fiscally conservative option.

To summarize, we must look at the big picture.

Nathan Bryant is a freelance writer based in Texas. He analyzes American politics and public policy solutions.

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Business Insider.